Is there any value in skepticism without independent thinking?
Without independent thinking, skepticism would seem to reduce to “I don’t accept what you say.” It may be right not to accept it, but the stance is of value only if it is based on reasoned analysis and accompanied by sensible alternatives.
The current climate in the US—in addition to a lack of forums for reasoned debate—seems to be one of greed and also fear.
This has been a very frightened country from its origins. It’s a striking feature of American culture that is interesting, well studied. Now, it’s fear and also hopelessness. I’m just old enough to remember the Depression; objectively it was much worse. Most of my family was unemployed working-class, but there was a lot of hopefulness after the first few years. There was a sense that things are going to get better, we can do something about it, there’s organizing and government efforts—it’s bad, but we can get out of this. There isn’t that feeling now, and it may be objectively right. If we continue on the path of financialization of the economy and offshoring of production, there’s not going to be very much here for the working population.
It’s kind of interesting if you look back at the classical economists, Adam Smith and David Ricardo. They were sort of aware of this—they didn’t put it in precisely these terms—but if you take a look at Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, the famous phrase “invisible hand” appears once. It appears essentially in a critique of what’s going on right now. What he pretty much says is that, in England, if merchants and manufacturers preferred to import from abroad and sell abroad, they might make profit, but it would be bad for England. He says they’re going to have what sometimes is called a home bias—they’ll prefer to do business at home, so as if by an invisible hand, England will be saved the ravages of a global market.[82]
David Ricardo was even stronger. He said that he knows perfectly well that his comparative advantage theories would collapse if English manufacturers, investors, and merchants did their business elsewhere, and he said he hopes very much that this will never happen—that they’ll have, perhaps, a sentimental commitment to the home country—and he hopes this attitude never disappears. The insights of the classical economists were quite sound, whatever you think of the argument. And that’s essentially the world we’re living in.
7.
Extraordinary Lives
Laray Polk: In your office, among all the reference materials, you have a rather large black-and-white photograph of Bertrand Russell. Did you have the opportunity to meet him?
Noam Chomsky: We never met. Our only contact was in 1967, when we were about to issue the “Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority,” advocating support for resistance, not just protest, to the Vietnam War. I was delegated to contact well-known figures to ask for their support. The first person I wrote to was Russell, who answered immediately, agreeing to sign the statement.
How much impact do you think Russell’s nonproliferation work has had?[83]
It did not have as much of an impact as it should have. Russell was vilified in the US; there’s a good account in the book Bertrand Russell’s America.[84] Einstein, who often expressed similar views, was generally treated as a nice man who ought to go back to his study in Princeton. Nevertheless, it doubtless had some impact within those circles, then quite narrow, that were seeking to end the severe and immediate threat of nuclear weapons. In later years, that movement grew considerably, becoming a very powerful popular movement by the 1980s, probably a major factor in inducing Reagan to introduce his “Star Wars” fantasies so as to ward off protest. There’s good work on this by Lawrence Wittner.[85]
Another scientist comes to mind, Linus Pauling, also a signatory to the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. I think you’ve mentioned having a great amount of respect for Pauling.
Pauling was a great scientist, but also a very dedicated and effective peace advocate. It was in the latter connection that I met him several times, on panels concerned with issues of war, aggression, and nuclear threats.
Also along these lines, you’ve mentioned Peggy Duff and her work with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.[86]
Peggy Duff was a remarkable woman. In the late 1940s, she was active in trying to end Britain’s shameful treatment of POWs after the war’s end. She then became a leading figure in the CND, and soon went on to become the driving force in organizing the international movement of opposition to the Vietnam War, and also other crucial matters, such as the brutal denial of elementary rights to Palestinians. She organized international conferences, and much else, and also published very valuable and informative studies of ongoing events, bringing out a great deal of material that was missing or distorted in the general media.[87] By rights, she should have won the Nobel Peace Prize.
The statement you mentioned, “A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority,” was at the heart of a legal case in which you were named a co-conspirator. Is this the same incident of potential imprisonment that prompted your wife Carol to go back to school in case she had to become the sole breadwinner?[88]
Well before the trials were announced it was likely that the government would prosecute those who they regarded—mostly wrongly—as leaders of the resistance. That’s why Carol went back to school after sixteen years (we had three kids to support). I was an unindicted co-conspirator in the first trial, but on the opening day the prosecuting attorney announced that I would be the primary defendant in the next trial—eliciting an objection from defense counsel. The reason why I was a co-conspirator and others were conspirators was comical, but in fact the entire government case was worthy of the Marx brothers, and provided some interesting insight into the incapacity of the political police to comprehend dissent and resistance.[89]
Pauling said of his nonproliferation work, “As scientists we have knowledge of the dangers involved and therefore a special responsibility to make these dangers known.”[90] It seems that being honest with the science is not enough, that one has to also be engaged in international affairs and have a willingness to explore alternative definitions of what security means. Perhaps it could even be described as possessing a social direction that is different from the aspirations of politicians and others in the expert class.
It illustrates a basic moral principle. Privilege confers opportunity, and opportunity confers responsibility. Expert knowledge is one component of privilege. Politicians may sometimes have special knowledge, but that cannot be assumed.
Russell, Pauling, Duff, and others like them had integrity, and were willing to act in accord with decent values. In every society I know of since classical times there have been honest dissidents, usually a fringe, almost always punished in one or another way. The kind of punishment depends on the nature of the society. In contrast, obedience and subordination to power are typically honored within the society, even though often condemned by history (or in enemy states).[91]
In 1967 George Steiner wrote an open letter in reference to your essay, “The Responsibility of Intellectuals.” His letter and your response were published together in the New York Review of Books. Is there anything memorable or significant to you about that exchange?[92]
82
Smith’s
83
The Russell-Einstein Manifesto, issued in London on July 9, 1955, provided the impetus for the formation of the Pugwash Conferences which began two years later and continue into the present. The group derived its name from the location of the first conference held in Pugwash, Nova Scotia. Membership is worldwide and follows a basic tenet: “Participation is always by individuals in their private capacity (not as representatives of governments or organizations).” Contemporary concerns include nonproliferation, reduction of chemical and biological weapons, and the establishment of a NWFZ in the Middle East. Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs (Pugwash.org). On Pugwash and Joseph Rotblat, see note 9, this chapter.
84
Barry Feinberg and Ronald Kasrils,
85
Lawrence Wittner produced a trilogy of books chronicling the history of the world nuclear disarmament movement:
86
Established in London in 1958, the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) advocates for Britain’s unilateral nuclear disarmament and much more. Early protests took the form of yearly marches to a nuclear weapons facility at Aldermaston. In 1960, some campaign supporters favored sit-ins and blockades, establishing a separate group led by Bertrand Russell, the Committee of 100. (Most Committee of 100 events resulted in arrest.) Contemporary concerns include opposition to the Trident nuclear weapon system, chemical and biological weapons, missile defense, a nuclear-armed NATO, and expansion of nuclear power.
87
Duff’s published works include
88
Carol (née Schatz) Chomsky received her PhD in linguistics from Harvard and served on the faculty of the Harvard Graduate School of Education from 1972 until 1997. She has been described as a “pioneer in the field of child language acquisition,” introducing a technique still in use today for helping children learn the mechanics of reading. The technique, referred to as “repeated listening,” is discussed in “After Decoding: What?,”
89
“A Call to Resist Illegitimate Authority” appeared in the
90
In the 1950s biologist Barry Commoner worked on a project measuring levels of radioactive strontium 90 in the baby teeth of North American children. As a result of incoming data—namely, radioactive fallout from aboveground testing increases radioisotope burden in the biosphere, including bioaccumulation in humans—Commoner and Pauling partnered in writing a petition calling for a ban on nuclear weapons testing in 1957. The petition gained international support, and eventually resulted in the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT). The treaty was not successfully negotiated until 1963, due in part to Edward Teller’s insistence on a program of peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs). See the original petition online at
91
Joseph (Józef) Rotblat was one of two project scientists to leave the Manhattan Project before the bombing of Japan, a move that caused heightened suspicions about his motives. He would spend the remainder of his life calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons and the end to war. After partnering with scientist Yasushi Nishiwaki in deducing the actual fallout from the
92
Cf. Steiner-Chomsky exchange, March 23, 1967, and “An Exchange on Resistance: Chad Walsh and William X X, reply by Noam Chomsky,”